Appeal No. 2001-1682
Application No. 08/837,668
19) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 23, mailed December 19,
2000) for the reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
appellant's brief (Paper No. 18, filed April 14, 2000),
supplemental brief (Paper No. 21, filed November 9, 2000) and
reply brief (Paper No. 24, filed January 23, 2001) for the
arguments thereagainst.1
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the examiner's
above-noted rejections will not be sustained. Our reasons
follow.
1
1 The supplemental examiner's answer (Paper No. 27) is not
listed above since it specifically notes on page 1 thereof that
the only changes therein vis-a-vis the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 23) relate to inclusion of claim 18, which like claims 1, 5,
and 14 contained errors as presented in the Appendix to
appellant's brief.
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007